Ogre Forums

reptor wrote:I just tried the QtOgre and it seems interesting... I'll need to look at it more. I'm not yet convinced that Qt can be used as a nice in-game GUI. For non-game applications it is a very good choice I am sure of that.

Of course, it remains to be seen how well Qt will work for an in-game GUI. I believe it will be fine for my project but everyone has different requirements. But don't forget, you can still integrate another GUI system such as CEGUI within Qt, in the same way that you used to integrate it with the Win32 API or MFC. Also Qt gives you much more than just a GUI, for example XML support (e.g. for DotScene loading) and networking.

One minor point which I find rather sad is the follwing statement from their site.
http://www.qtsoftware.com/about/licensi ... ions-of-qt

Can I switch from using Qt under the LGPL to commercial afterwards?

Users of the LGPL versions of Qt need to comply with the LGPL licensing terms and conditions. Qt’s commercial license agreement contains a restriction that prohibits customers from initially beginning development with the LGPL licensed version of Qt and then transitioning to a commercial version of Qt.

For testing and first prototyping this isnt good, but acceptable and understandable from their point of view. Otherwise no one would be a commercial license until the release of the product or the need of more extensive support arises.

Does it really matter?
Dynamic linking to QT does keep you in the clear, regardless. As it's the case with Ogre.
But, it's a weird clause.

It almost sounds like someone's done a search and replaces of s/GPL/LGPL/g across parts from their old FAQ and put it into the new one without really putting much thought into whether it makes sense.

The only edge case where I could see that mattering is if you wanted to modify and then release a modified version of Qt (say a port to a new architecture, or just optimising something for speed), without releasing the source, then you need to buy licenses for all their developers rather then just a single one (to get developer support). I can't see there being much of a point to this in terms of profit, but on the other hand a company doing this would potentially suck up a lot of support time should they be contacting the company for support, so it does vaguely make sense.

jacmoe wrote:

reptor wrote:KDE wins hands down the desktop fight against Gnome, so I think Gtk already lost to Qt if we compare the desktops built on top of them

That's your opinion.
I am a Gnome guy, all the way.
Not using KDE, and have no intentions of using it. It''s just too Windows-like. That's just my personal preference.
And I am not alone. Hence Gnome still being here. Choices are good.
But, still: I applaud QT, because it's a nice library.
But so is wxWindows.

I use xmonad and awesome (just using this on laptop because of smaller configuration needs after desktop monitor stopped working). Far better than anything you'd ever imagine.

Oh yeah, I do use Thunar though (from xfce).

Lovely!

darke wrote:It almost sounds like someone's done a search and replaces of s/GPL/LGPL/g across parts...

That would be "%s/GPL/LGPL/g" (if you're talking vim).

milliams wrote:

jacmoe wrote:

reptor wrote:KDE wins hands down the desktop fight against Gnome, so I think Gtk already lost to Qt if we compare the desktops built on top of them

And I am not alone. Hence Gnome still being here. Choices are good.
But, still: I applaud QT, because it's a nice library.
But so is wxWindows.

Well put. Despite being a KDE developer I can see the huge benefit of having more than one DE/toolkit around; competition is always good for innovation. This really isn't the place for a discussion on the relative merits of GNOME/KDE/XFCE/Enlightenment/ or Qt/GTK/whatever.

Dug this up from the grave

I've always been a die-hard Gnome guy, and didn't use KDE because I thought it looked childish and too Redmond'ish - until I tried it yesterday.
Wow - KDE has changed a lot lately. It's not a toy anymore. The interface is not in the way.
It really looks professional and streamlined - it's my desktop environment of choice now.
Great job KDE team.

Has it gotten usable with KDE 4.2? I have been a long time KDE3 user but KDE4 has driven me to GNOME to do all my Qt development .
I will check KDE4 again when 4.3 is released until then GNOME is it for me

SomeFusion wrote:Has it gotten usable with KDE 4.2? I have been a long time KDE3 user but KDE4 has driven me to GNOME to do all my Qt development .
I will check KDE4 again when 4.3 is released until then GNOME is it for me

In my opinion, KDE 4.2 passed the threshold of being a completely usable desktop environment. Both 4.0 and 4.1 were aimed at early adopters but 4.2 is aimed at all users. Quoting,

The KDE 4.2 Release Announcement wrote:KDE 4.2 builds on the technology introduced with KDE 4.0 in January 2008. After the release of KDE 4.1, which was aimed at casual users, the KDE Community is now confident we have a compelling offering for the majority of end users.

KDE 4.3 is once again making large strides to make the desktop environment useful for the user, e.g. http://kde.org/announcements/announce-4.3-beta2.php.

Plasma and Oxygen was what made me switch to KDE.
I am looking forward to 4.3

Yes, this switch was really cool, though it makes my choice to use GTK or QT for a program even harder, it used to be 'GTK because of the license'